Timing chains hard on oil (PP 5w30)?

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: TallPaul
That is an interesting engine, flat layout like the old VW engines, but surely orders of magnitude more complex/high tech. Surely it runs great, and I would think that a long chain is far more trustworthy on a Subaru than a Ford.


Why? That's a ludicrous statement. The 4.6L in the Vic flies in the face of that logic.

 

[TallPaul]

I know a guy who's 4.6 blew the timing chain and that was the end of the engine--interference engine. That it's an interference engine is enough to keep me from the 4.6. Not sure the Subaru.

 

[artificialist]

Sure a timing chain will be tougher on oil than a dry belt drive.

However, I wonder just how much tougher it will be. There are plenty of chain driven engines that have extremely high miles on them, and never had internal work, even though the oil chosen was an ordinary conventional oil.

 

[Gary Allan]

Just because a timing chain is a meat grinder for the oil doesn't mean that the engine requires anything special to live a long life. I don't think you can connect the two.

Oh, TallPaul, you're itching to get behind the wheel of a CV and cruise the highway. I might miss out on my experience with it. Fuel will make me bypass it for more thrifty wheels if I ever buy another vehicle ..but it was on my list.

 

[02Pilot]

Plenty of BMW M30 motors running around with 300k+ miles on the long chains turning their OHCs. With proper oiling (type, capacity and distribution), there's no reason a timing chain should ever be an issue for the oil, nor the oil for the chain.

 

[rcy]

Looks like the pic of the engine has gone missing, so here it is again.

[/img]

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: TallPaul
I know a guy who's 4.6 blew the timing chain and that was the end of the engine--interference engine. That it's an interference engine is enough to keep me from the 4.6. Not sure the Subaru.


MOST engines are interference engines. The ones that are not are few and far between nowadays....... This should not be used as a decision making tool when purchasing a vehicle IMHO........ As I said, the Vic's fleet usage record is far more indicative of the reliability of the design than one random sample of one person who's happened to have an issue.

 

[T-Bone]

Although a chain seems like it might be tough on oil because it's got a lot of little pieces, it's really not. A modern roller chain has almost all rolling contact surfaces and can last 100's of thousands of miles with minimal wear.

What's really hard on oil is: nonroller cam lifters, high-load gear drives, fuel/water dilution, and too-high temperatures.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: TallPaul
I know a guy who's 4.6 blew the timing chain and that was the end of the engine--interference engine. That it's an interference engine is enough to keep me from the 4.6. Not sure the Subaru.


No offence, but that is a very lame excuse to not like the 4.6.


That engine is one of, if not the best motor on the road today. police, limos, cabs all use the crown vic, town car, or merc for the GREAT reliabilty of the car and motor, not for its "stunning good looks"

The ford modular motor (4.6, 6.8, ect. . ) is one of, if not the most produced car motor in the world.
Not for its fuel usage, not for its power, and not for its "stunning good looks". It is so mass produced because of the simple fact of how reliable and bullet proof it really is.

You can not say, "I know a guy who had one and it broke, so its a bad motor"


But, if you dont like it, thats fine. you cant just say you dont like it because its a interference engine, thus its not good. that same "interference engine" is proven its self countless times again to be one of the best engines around.

 

[TallPaul]

Not saying it's a bad motor. They run great, but I like pushrod engines and don't like interference engines. The 5.0L V8 is a great engine. Too bad Ford had to go to all new engines, but it was likely fuel economy driven.

And the guy who's chain broke, just served to make me aware of the engine being interference. His was a former cop car, so maybe had been abused.

 

[OVERKILL]

The 302 was an interference engine!!! AND it had a timing chain!!!!

I really don't see where you are going with this! Most pushrod engines are also interference engines! The only one (Ford) I know of that wasn't was the 300 I6.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: 02zx9r
bill in utah will chime in on his experiences with his outbacks (might be forresters) and how they are on oil. Corolla too


My 2005 Corolla which uses a timing chain is harder on oils than a belt engine (like the older hondas). That is also with 90% of the miles on the highway and most of the time not in the cold.

I ran a 25k oil for a little under 10k and the TBN was a low 2. This is with a filter change and 2 quarts added in a 4 quart sump.

My subaru outback has belts but I have not done any TBN with my UOAs. Since I'm done with doing any more UOAs (I'll do one more before the warranty runs out) I can't comment on it.

I'm glad my Subaru is only a SOHC. The H6 is too complex for me. (Really so is my H4)

Take care, bill

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The 302 was an interference engine!!! AND it had a timing chain!!!!

I really don't see where you are going with this! Most pushrod engines are also interference engines! The only one (Ford) I know of that wasn't was the 300 I6.


Yes. There are few engines that aren't. The fear factor for interference engines is with timing belts. I think everyone that's old enough has an an SBC that jumped time when the nylon gears wore out. No problem. You put on another set of gears and a new chain.

Have your early evolution Escort lose a timing belt (when America was getting its feet wet on timing belts en mass) ..and you're in for a repair that challenged the value of the car (at the time). Head removal ..machining ...bent valves.. Surely not consumer friendly.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: 02Pilot
Plenty of BMW M30 motors running around with 300k+ miles on the long chains turning their OHCs. With proper oiling (type, capacity and distribution), there's no reason a timing chain should ever be an issue for the oil, nor the oil for the chain.


Ditto for MB OM 616 and 617 diesel engines. And those ar eloaded with soot!

 

[Gary Allan]

Fear of interference engines came about with timing belts. These were naturally mated with OHC. No one ever feared an interference engine before then (for most of us). Now that we're going back to chains ..the OHC part of it lingers in the fear factor by association.

Although I know the spec's for my engine in determining maximum slop in the timing chain since I have an FSM, I've never seen a routine service interval for checking timing chain slop in any owners manual. Now we've seen issues with timing chain guides and tension'ers and whatnot ..but not much with the chains themselves.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The 302 was an interference engine!!! AND it had a timing chain!!!!

I really don't see where you are going with this! Most pushrod engines are also interference engines! The only one (Ford) I know of that wasn't was the 300 I6.


Yes. There are few engines that aren't. The fear factor for interference engines is with timing belts. I think everyone that's old enough has an an SBC that jumped time when the nylon gears wore out. No problem. You put on another set of gears and a new chain.

Have your early evolution Escort lose a timing belt (when America was getting its feet wet on timing belts en mass) ..and you're in for a repair that challenged the value of the car (at the time). Head removal ..machining ...bent valves.. Surely not consumer friendly.


Yes, I've been quite happy that all of my 302's have been double-roller with cast gears. My 300 I6 on the other hand.... nylon went bye-bye and I tossed the engine.

 

[TallPaul]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The 302 was an interference engine!!! AND it had a timing chain!!!!
...
Yes, I've been quite happy that all of my 302's have been double-roller with cast gears. My 300 I6 on the other hand.... nylon went bye-bye and I tossed the engine.
[/quote]I can't find the 302 on lists that I get from Google for interference engines:
Quote:
FORD INTERFERENCE ENGINES 1984-2003
1981-85 1.6L Escort, EXP
1981-83 1.6L LN7, Lynx
1984-85 2.0L Escort, Tempo
1993-95 2.0L Probe
1986-88 2.0L Ranger
1984-87 2.0L Lynx, Topaz Diesel
1985 2.2L Ranger
1989-92 2.2L Probe
1986-88 2.3L Ranger
1986-87 2.3L Diesel Ranger
1991-98 4.6L Crown Victoria
, but the list I get does say
Quote:
... list are engines that AERA is currently aware of that have exhibited interference. There may be other engines that are not listed ... that have the possibility of piston to valve contact. If the engine you are working on is not listed, do not assume that it is a freewheeling design.


Interference Engine List (many makes) quoted above.

If the 302 is interference, it is not on the list probably because it rarely blows the chain. As you note, double roller. What's the chain on the 4.6? Is it double roller? I suspect not. It seems obvious that the 4.6 has blown enough timing chains to make this list and the 302 has not.

As for the 300 and nylon gear, I understand Ford did that to cut noise. Older 300s (or was it the HD 300) had steel gears and some of the guys who hot rod their 300s put the steel gears on theirs.

 

[OVERKILL]

That list is useless in terms of determining which engines are interference or not; it's a list of engines that have had interference OCCUR. Any engine where the capability for the piston to slap the valves if something breaks is an interference engine. ANY engine where EITHER of the valves protrudes far enough outside the wedge area of the chamber; beyond the capacity of the relief (if present) in the top of the piston has the POTENTIAL for interference!

Not all 302's had the double-roller chain. Not sure about 351's. Many of the passenger car "standard output" 302's (with the exception of the engine in the Town Car) had the single roller chain with a nylon upper gear.

And yes, I KNOW of some that broke! Took hundreds of thousands of Km, abuse, and other things, but it has happened.



You are referencing an engine (the 4.6L) that has been known to go 1/2 a million miles in fleet service with relative ease, and then use the point that SOME of those engines.... during that massive accumulation of mileage, MIGHT have had issues with their STOCK, ORIGINAL timing chain! MOST engines never even reach HALF that mileage!

Gary summed it up: It's OHC engines with timing BELTS that gave the entire concept of an interference engine wings to strike a nerve with people like yourself. You need to realize that MOST engines ARE interference designs.

The small block Chevy, the small block Ford....etc. These engines all have the potential (depending on what cam was in it) to have interference if something broke. I had an old 440 Dodge have a valve stick in the guide and smack the top of the piston, breaking the head off the valve. THAT is an interference engine.

Unless the engine in question had a BROOMSTICK for a camshaft, where the valves never come far enough out of the head to ever hit anything (and these cams WERE used), the potential for interference is there.

And yes, the older 300's had steel gears. The engine began life as a tractor engine and is often used in generation and irrigation equipment (pumps...etc) still to this day.

 

[TallPaul]

List is useful to a degree. I don't see the Ford 3.0 Vulcan V6 listed and though I had found out it is not interference. Likewise don't see the GM 454 V8 listed.

I thought the 300 I6 was new in '65, but that does not mean it was not used in other equip before that. I've heard it's been in combines, UPS trucks, school busses, wood chippers, etc. I used to run a wood chipper that had the 300 (or the 240 version). The HD 300 had a forged steel crankshaft, vs cast iron in most. 300 was sold for industrial use through early part of this decade then I saw it drop out and be replaced by the 4.2 V6, at least at one company marketing them.

 

[addyguy]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: 02zx9r
bill in utah will chime in on his experiences with his outbacks (might be forresters) and how they are on oil. Corolla too


My 2005 Corolla which uses a timing chain is harder on oils than a belt engine (like the older hondas). That is also with 90% of the miles on the highway and most of the time not in the cold.

I ran a 25k oil for a little under 10k and the TBN was a low 2. This is with a filter change and 2 quarts added in a 4 quart sump.

My subaru outback has belts but I have not done any TBN with my UOAs. Since I'm done with doing any more UOAs (I'll do one more before the warranty runs out) I can't comment on it.

I'm glad my Subaru is only a SOHC. The H6 is too complex for me. (Really so is my H4)

Take care, bill


Sorry to hear you're not doing any more UOA's...I understand why, but I looked forward to seeing them...